PDA

View Full Version : BANDARgate- Another Duhbya crony scandall


Frankie
06-11-2007, 08:43 AM
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/content/view/1296/81/

banyon
06-11-2007, 08:45 AM
Wait, ask patteeu. This reflects on Bush in no way whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Cochise
06-11-2007, 09:28 AM
the republican prince charming, lying through his teeth once again!

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 10:11 AM
Funding covert activities to defeat Communist politicians, during the Cold War....is newsworthy, or surprising? :spock:

And...we believe him, when it suits our political purposes and partisan bias; however, we reject his statements as unreliable....as untrustworthy.....when they DO NOT suit our political purpose and partisan bias? :shrug:

Got it.... :rolleyes:

patteeu
06-11-2007, 10:39 AM
What is the scandal here as it relates to Bush or are we just noting that Bush knows this guy?

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 11:08 AM
What is the scandal here as it relates to Bush or are we just noting that Bush knows this guy?I believe it's called, "guilt by association"....which can be an interesting road to travel, if one chooses it. :hmmm:

Frankie
06-11-2007, 11:13 AM
I believe it's called, "guilt by association"....which can be an interesting road to travel, if one chooses it. :hmmm:
No, it's called buzzards always flying together.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 12:22 PM
No, it's called buzzards always flying together.

:spock: So I guess you're pretty down on the congressional black caucus and the house democrats after William Jefferson's indictment, huh? :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 12:35 PM
No, it's called buzzards always flying together.
Do I need to post pics of prominent politicians of all political stripes, from both sides of the isle....in cahoots and associated with despicable figures from all over the globe, to prove the silliness of your claim? Or will you just concede that such "guilt by association" knows no partisan boundaries? :rolleyes:

banyon
06-11-2007, 12:50 PM
:spock: So I guess you're pretty down on the congressional black caucus and the house democrats after William Jefferson's indictment, huh? :rolleyes:

I didn't realize the Black Caucus were all involved in international business transactions together.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 12:51 PM
I didn't realize the Black Caucus were all involved in international business transactions together.

They are just as involved, afaics, as the Bush family is with this Bandar situation.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 12:56 PM
They are just as involved, afaics, as the Bush family is with this Bandar situation.

It's not evidence of wrongdoing that is the concern here, 'it's the seriousness of the charge'.

banyon
06-11-2007, 12:57 PM
They are just as involved, afaics, as the Bush family is with this Bandar situation.

So the Black Caucus got us involved in a war in which their Buddy William Jefferson could receive weapons bribes from other congressional leaders they were closely connected with in foreign countries which collaborated in the war?

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 01:02 PM
Do I need to post pics of prominent politicians of all political stripes, from both sides of the isle....in cahoots and associated with despicable figures from all over the globe, to prove the silliness of your claim? Or will you just concede that such "guilt by association" knows no partisan boundaries? :rolleyes:
Why didn't you bring the traveling circus to make this point on this thread as well?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164077

Any right winger possibly in trouble? Guys guys...this happens on both parties... ROFL

Everytime.

Frankie
06-11-2007, 01:17 PM
:spock: So I guess you're pretty down on the congressional black caucus and the house democrats after William Jefferson's indictment, huh? :rolleyes:
I'm down on WJ. But I haven't seen a pic of any Dem or Rep kissyfacing with him or partnering with him in multibillion dollar deals.

Logical
06-11-2007, 02:39 PM
What is the scandal here as it relates to Bush or are we just noting that Bush knows this guy?

You realize that by participating in this thread you bring credence to some peoples mind that Bush is guilty of something even when he might not be?

Such is the plight of the BB's number 1 Bush defender Mr. patteeu.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 02:47 PM
I'm down on WJ. But I haven't seen a pic of any Dem or Rep kissyfacing with him or partnering with him in multibillion dollar deals.

They got Tom DeLay's head on a platter, but I don't see William Jefferson resigning. All they have talked about is him giving up his powerful committee posts.

Frankie
06-11-2007, 03:18 PM
They got Tom DeLay's head on a platter, but I don't see William Jefferson resigning. All they have talked about is him giving up his powerful committee posts.
That'll come about. And it will have my support. Unless miraculously he is PROVEN innocent.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 03:52 PM
Why didn't you bring the traveling circus to make this point on this thread as well?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164077

Any right winger possibly in trouble? Guys guys...this happens on both parties... ROFL

Everytime.
Since it does happen to both sides, and you've not provided evidence otherwise (even supplied a link to support my point)....despite your indignant hypocrisy, I'll assume you agree.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 03:55 PM
Since it does happen to both sides, and you've not provided evidence otherwise (even supplied a link to support my point)....despite your indignant hypocrisy, I'll assume you agree.
Of course I do.

I was just waiting for the "Hey guys...lets wait until a trial...and lets wait until he is proven guilty" show and the "Look this happens on BOTH side" schtick.

Why didn't it come?

It came here.

I wonder why? ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 04:00 PM
Of course I do.

I was just waiting for the "Hey guys...lets wait until a trial...and lets wait until he is proven guilty" show and the "Look this happens on BOTH side" schtick.

Why didn't it come?

It came here.

I wonder why? ROFL
Since when did innocent until proven guilty fall out of fashion?

An insignificant puss of a Congressmen, that evidence for corruption is pretty clear isn't as deserving of deference....compared to hypothetical speculation toward a President, especially when partisan motives are involved. FWIW, I defended Clinton ALL THE WAY....to the blue dress.

At least I am consistent. :shrug:

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:02 PM
Since when did innocent until proven guilty fall out of fashion?

An insignificant puss of a Congressmen, that evidence for corruption is pretty clear isn't as deserving of deference....compared to hypothetical speculation toward a President, especially when partisan motives are involved. FWIW, I defended Clinton ALL THE WAY....to the blue dress.

At least I am consistent. :shrug:
There is nothing at all wrong with innocent until proven guilty.

I just only hear song and dance about it on threads where righties are possibly in trouble.

It is good for a chuckle.

That goes the same for your "both sides do it" deal.

I know I know, you defended the other side when Chiefs Planet wasn't around.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 04:06 PM
They have him on TAPE. They found they money in his freezer. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty and all, but please. You'd have to be a flat earther to think he was innocent. LMAO

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 04:10 PM
There is nothing at all wrong with innocent until proven guilty.

I just only hear song and dance about it on threads where righties are possibly in trouble.

It is good for a chuckle.

That goes the same for your "both sides do it" deal.

I know I know, you defended the other side when Chiefs Planet wasn't around.I was among those who called for DeLay's head. I think Newt is a putz. The Religious Right is dragging down the Republican party, similarly to the way special interest groups have destroyed the Democratic party. There are plenty of "conservatives" who I've criticized to one degree or another. Except, when one only pays selective attention, I suppose it's hard to see.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate...with so-much Bush bashing and hatred around here, there is no challenge in joining the chorus. Especially lazy, uninformed, and ideological witch hunts around here which masquerade as informed opinions. I didn't like it when the Republicans did it to Clinton; and I don't like it now. Again, at least I'm consistent.

Your attempt to frame yourself as anything other than a left wing knee-jerk liberal, is what I think is worth a chuckle around here. One needs only do a search of the threads you have started....and any pretense of moderation or objectivity on your part goes out the window very quickly, indeed. For the record, you are fooling no one either.

If you want to call me a liar....well, that says more about you than anything else, really.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:11 PM
They have him on TAPE. They found they money in his freezer. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty and all, but please. You'd have to be a flat earther to think he was innocent. LMAO
I don't believe he is innocent.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:13 PM
I was among those who called for DeLays head. I think Newt is a putz. There are plenty of "conservatives" who I've criticized to one degree or another. Except, when one only pays selective attention, I suppose it's hard to see.

Your attempt to frame yourself as anything other than a leftwing knee-jerk liberal, is what I think is worth a chuckle around here. One needs only do a search of the threads you have started....and any pretense of moderation or objectivity on your part goes out the window very quickly, indeed. For the record, you are fooling no one either.

If you want to call me a liar....well, that says more about you than anything else, really.
I don't think there is a whole lot that is "liberal" about me. I am pretty far left on a few select things. Pretty minor stuff though.

You know what, I will play ball...on what issues am I "left wing"

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 04:24 PM
I don't think there is a whole lot that is "liberal" about me. I am pretty far left on a few select things. Pretty minor stuff though.

You know what, I will play ball...on what issues am I "left wing"What Republicans have you voted for? :shrug:

Peruse the following threads, and try to....with a straight face...say you are not liberal.....ROFL

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=161790

NTTAWWT, but why deny what's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain...why not embrace what you are? :shrug:

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:30 PM
What Republicans have you voted for? :shrug:

Peruse the following threads, and try to....with a straight face...say you are not liberal.....ROFL

NTTAWWT, but why deny what's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/search.php?searchid=161790
I am obviously left leaning...and not a fan of this administration.

How ever this whole left wing liberal talk is offbase.

What issues have made you paint me that way. I bet you can't name that many...

I will concede gay and lesbian issues...I will half way concede the importance I put in the separation of church in state (is even a liberal thing?)

I would concede my opposition to this war if I thought for a second it was any kind of fringe or any opinion that paints someone automatically as left leaning.

That seems like a pretty small basket for being a knee jerk liberal. You have anything to add?

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:35 PM
The more I think about it the more it seems silly that defense of church and state can really be called "liberal"

BIG_DADDY
06-11-2007, 04:35 PM
I will concede gay and lesbian issues...

Welcome to Zachback mountain.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:37 PM
Welcome to Zachback mountain.
Yes yes Troy...we all know you are the insecure alpha male...move along man move along...

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:39 PM
So the Black Caucus got us involved in a war in which their Buddy William Jefferson could receive weapons bribes from other congressional leaders they were closely connected with in foreign countries which collaborated in the war?

I asked you to walk me through how Bush is connected in any reasonable way to this scandal and this is the best you've got? Surely you aren't one of those guys who thinks this war is about enriching cronies.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:40 PM
I'm down on WJ. But I haven't seen a pic of any Dem or Rep kissyfacing with him or partnering with him in multibillion dollar deals.

Bush partnered with Bandar in some kind of scandalous multibillion dollar deal? Or is Kotter right about this being guilt by association?

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:41 PM
You realize that by participating in this thread you bring credence to some peoples mind that Bush is guilty of something even when he might not be?

Such is the plight of the BB's number 1 Bush defender Mr. patteeu.

The people who disagree with me on a regular basis are often pretty delusional so that doesn't surprise me one bit.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:42 PM
That'll come about. And it will have my support. Unless miraculously he is PROVEN innocent.

If he goes, then Nancy Pelosi should be next on the chopping block. Afterall, she caucuses with the guy. He probably even voted for her for speaker. Right?

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:42 PM
The people who disagree with me on a regular basis are often pretty delusional so that doesn't surprise me one bit.
Wow, is this post joking?

BIG_DADDY
06-11-2007, 04:43 PM
Yes yes Troy...we all know you are the insecure alpha male...move along man move along...

No way, I'll always be around now that your broke the truce you yourself initiated. No turning back now Zachback.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 04:45 PM
I am obviously left leaning...and not a fan of this administration.

How ever this whole left wing liberal talk is offbase.

What issues have made you paint me that way. I bet you can't name that many...

I will concede gay and lesbian issues...I will half way concede the importance I put in the separation of church in state (is even a liberal thing?)

I would concede my opposition to this war if I thought for a second it was any kind of fringe or any opinion that paints someone automatically as left leaning.

That seems like a pretty small basket for being a knee jerk liberal. You have anything to add?
You tend to be restrained on a lot of issues, so your track record is not as clear....but based on the issues you alone have cited, coupled with the passion you seem to possess for those issues, that puts you clearly left of center. Your choice of issues, as well as the priority you place on them, also plays a part. Environment is the other one that seems to come to mind, IIRC.

It's like me: I'm pro-choice, pro-education, anti-death penalty, I favor many progressive policies....but at the local level, I'm okay with civil unions (decided by each state,) I favor gun control.....hell, if you were to judge me based on THOSE issues, I'd be liberal too. However, taxes, defense, and a restrained federal government....and the priority I place on them, makes me unabashedly conservative though.

Priorities and level of passion on key issues, is a much better indicator of political ideology than.....half-hearted or ho-hum positions on issues that are not real important to you.

Embrace your ideology. If there is a charade going on here, you can bet your ass it isn't with me.... :)

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:45 PM
No way, I'll always be around now that your broke the truce you yourself initiated. No turning back now Zachback.
I don't remember the exact moment we started this game again. Or how it came about.

I am sure it had something to do with you being a drama queen and calling other people dramatic in the process. No biggie.

patteeu
06-11-2007, 04:47 PM
Wow, is this post joking?

No.

BIG_DADDY
06-11-2007, 04:47 PM
I don't remember the exact moment we started this game again. Or how it came about.

I am sure it had something to do with you being a drama queen and calling other people dramatic in the process. No biggie.

No, it had to do with your man crush on me showing up in my threads more and more frequently.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:48 PM
You tend to be restrained on a lot of issues, so your track record is not as clear....but based on the issues you alone have cited, coupled with the passion you seem to possess for those issues, that puts you clearly left of center. Your choice of issues, as well as the priority you place on them, also plays a part.

It's like me: I'm pro-choice, pro-education, anti-death penalty, I favor many progressive policies....but at the local level, I'm okay with civil unions (decided by each state,) I favor gun control.....hell, if you were to judge me based on THOSE issues, I'd be liberal too. However, taxes, defense, and a restrained federal government....and the priority I place on them, makes me unabashedly conservative though.

Priorities and level of passion on key issues, is a much better indicator of political ideology than.....half-hearted or ho-hum positions on issues that are not real important to you.

Embrace your ideology. If there is a charade going on here, you can bet your ass it isn't with me.... :)
My knowledge of health care issues and alot of fiscal issues is quite limited. I am not a huge fan of going on and on and on about stuff I feel I know little about or can't add in the discussion at all. Social issues are things I see and experience daily. There are going to be more emboldened takes from me on that.

I am not a big government guy. In theory, I love the way Republicans SHOULD run government. But that went bye bye a long time ago...

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:50 PM
No, it had to do with your man crush on me showing up in my threads more and more frequently.
I knew I had it right.

Wait, was it when I called you out on your hilarious..."there are butt pirates RULING the message board" post? Who could let that one slide? Truce or not. Great work by yourself...not as good as when you tried so hard play off naming the wrong president in a DC thread not to long ago. Good times.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:50 PM
No.
Fantastic.

BIG_DADDY
06-11-2007, 04:57 PM
I knew I had it right.

Wait, was it when I called you out on your hilarious..."there are butt pirates RULING the message board" post? Who could let that one slide? Truce or not. Great work by yourself...not as good as when you tried so hard play off naming the wrong president in a DC thread not to long ago. Good times.

You have been following me around for awhile now, it's not about any one thing. It's all good, I at least understanding the nature of the game moving forward. Your word is worthless bitch so you can suck my cobb now Mr. Zachback mountain.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 04:59 PM
You have been following me around for awhile now, it's not about any one thing. It's all good, I at least understanding the nature of the game moving forward. Your word is worthless bitch so you can suck my cobb now Mr. Zachback mountain.
Again, I can't even remember when this whole thing started up. I am sure you were innocent in the whole deal. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 05:00 PM
My knowledge of health care issues and alot of fiscal issues is quite limited. I am not a huge fan of going on and on and on about stuff I feel I know little about or can't add in the discussion at all. Social issues are things I see and experience daily. There are going to be more emboldened takes from me on that.

I am not a big government guy. In theory, I love the way Republicans SHOULD run government. But that went bye bye a long time ago...
Social issues at the federal level, should be minimal, IMHO. I'm not a fan of social engineering by the feds, except in rare circumstances. Emphasizing social issues, is by definition...liberal.

As for big government, you are right about that....but consider the alternative. If you think Reps have bloated the size of government....you need only IMAGINE how unrestrained Democratic rule would have done to entitlement spending and the social "safety net." Reps (esp. Bush) have departed from Reagan's view of reducing the size of government, or at least restraining the growth. It's one of the things new Republicans will do well to recommit themselves to....that's for sure. But at least there is hope of that happening on the right; on the left.....forgetaboutit....:shake:

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 05:06 PM
Social issues at the federal level, should be minimal, IMHO. I'm not a fan of social engineering by the feds, except in rare circumstances. Emphasizing social issues, is by definition...liberal.

As for big government, you are right about that....but consider the alternative. If you think Reps have bloated the size of government....you need only IMAGINE how unrestrained Democratic rule would have done to entitlement spending and the social "safety net." Reps (esp. Bush) have departed from Reagan's view of reducing the size of government, or at least restraining the growth. It's one of the things new Republicans will do well to recommit themselves to....that's for sure. But at least there is hope of that happening on the right; on the left.....forgetaboutit....:shake:
I don't have illusions that the Dems are reducing the government anytime soon. But I just don't see a difference between what they do and what the Republicans have done...really at all. The Clinton Administration was far more fiscally conservative. So if that issue is a push then I move on to other ones...I realize that the way our system is set up will marginalize the far left...and what is left is a party I can live with. And vote for.

|Zach|
06-11-2007, 05:16 PM
I am out of here. Bloc Party is up at the Uptown tonight. I have been waiting for this for a while!

<object width="425" height="299"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/632n6BfyHL0IY22Ab"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/632n6BfyHL0IY22Ab" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="299" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 05:50 PM
... The Clinton Administration was far more fiscally conservative. So if that issue is a push then I move on to other ones...I realize that the way our system is set up will marginalize the far left...and what is left is a party I can live with. And vote for.
Clinton was conservative fiscally speaking, but ONLY by Democratic party standards. And, to be fair and honest, he did so.....largley because of the Republican Congress; it was certainly NOT out of any deep ideological reason. Conversely, Bush has NOT been a small government guy either--which to many of us conservative types, has been our biggest dissappointment with him. I use to be able to live with your party too; but 25 years of history....has gradually, and painfully, changed my mind.

I am out of here. Bloc Party is up at the Uptown tonight. I have been waiting for this for a while!



Sounds like fun. Enjoy. :toast:

Adept Havelock
06-11-2007, 06:11 PM
I use to be able to live with your party too; but 25 years of history....has gradually, and painfully, changed my mind.

Yet there you are still standing in the foyer, hand on the door, announcing to the world "I'm leaving now...really! I mean it this time!." :p

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 06:13 PM
Yet there you are still standing in the foyer, hand on the door, announcing to the world "I'm leaving now...really! I mean it this time!." :p

Notice I said "your party".....

Nope. It's official. I've left. The only question is: independent, or switching sides entirely. ;)

Frankie
06-11-2007, 06:40 PM
The Religious Right is dragging down the Republican party, similarly to the way special interest groups have destroyed the Democratic party.
Yo Mr. Kotta'
Saying "The Religious Right is dragging down the Republican party" is like saying Paris Hilton has only been kissed and only once too. The understatement of the year. "The Religious Right" IS the Republican Party. Your candidates can't breath without appeasing them. And are you also saying that if we eliminatet the ReliRights the GOP is pure and free of other "Interest Groups?"

I enjoy playing devil's advocate...with so-much Bush bashing and hatred around here, there is no challenge in joining the chorus. ....Do you really think anyone supporting the Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Ken Star and the "Swift Boaters" has any grounds to complain about "Bush Bashing?" We are in a mess potentially worse than Viet Nam because of the utter corruption, greed and total incompetence that's going on epicentered at the White House. I can see us differ on whether we perceive Bush himself involved or just too stupid to recognize whats going on on his watch. But I cannot see how you, as well as some other smart folks on this forum still consider Bush defensable and still call him a "victim!" It's not Bush Bashing and hatred. It's a clear case of "if the shoe fits."

Logical
06-11-2007, 06:47 PM
The people who disagree with me on a regular basis are often pretty delusional so that doesn't surprise me one bit.

You are becoming a little bit self-centered there sir.

Just because you believe the galaxy revolves around the earth does not make it so, you might want to remember that from history.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2007, 07:28 PM
....
Do you really think anyone supporting the Party of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Ken Star and the "Swift Boaters" has any grounds to complain about "Bush Bashing?" ...... But I cannot see how you, as well as some other smart folks on this forum still consider Bush defensable and still call him a "victim!" It's not Bush Bashing and hatred. It's a clear case of "if the shoe fits."...Yo, Frankie:

If you wish to paint with a broad brush, two can play that game....:) Do you really think anyone supporting the Party of Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, William Jefferson, Edward Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, George Soros and the "MoveOn.Org" has any grounds to complain about Bush? ...... But I cannot see how you, as well as some other smart folks on this forum still consider Bush any worse than what we'd have seen from a pathetic Presidency under John Kerry and still call him a "da Debil!" It's plain and simple Bush Bashing and irrational hatred that drives you and your ilk. It's a clear case of "get over yourselves already."...and grow up. You lost the election. Live with it. And prepare to cry considering you very well could lose again, even with the "quagmire" of Iraq..... Gee, see how EASY that was? And, what fun, to boot.....yeeeeeee-HAAAAWWWW! :p

:)

patteeu
06-12-2007, 06:18 AM
You are becoming a little bit self-centered there sir.

How so? The delusional ones don't become so just because they disagree with me. I presume it's the other way around.

banyon
06-12-2007, 11:10 AM
I asked you to walk me through how Bush is connected in any reasonable way to this scandal and this is the best you've got? Surely you aren't one of those guys who thinks this war is about enriching cronies.

I do believe that is one of the reasons. Or at least a convenient fringe benefit.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 11:17 AM
I do believe that is one of the reasons. Or at least a convenient fringe benefit.So, you gonna walk patty "through it"....or you just gonna toss it out there as more hyperbole and speculation unsubstantiated with any real evidence? :shrug:

banyon
06-12-2007, 11:21 AM
So, you gonna walk patty "through it"....or you just gonna toss it out there as more hyperbole and speculation unsubstantiated with any real evidence? :shrug:

Wait, hold up for a minute. I'll quit my job and utilize my vast network of intra-governmental investigators to root out the source of the corruption so I can meet your standards of proof. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 01:18 PM
Wait, hold up for a minute. I'll quit my job and utilize my vast network of intra-governmental investigators to root out the source of the corruption so I can meet your standards of proof. :rolleyes:
So, you are sticking with: unsubstantiated hyperbole and speculation? Got it. :thumb:

You may join jAZ, TC, and Duhnise at the 4-Top in the corner....of the basement. We'll send a waiter down to check on you once in awhile. We don't want to scare off "paying" customers....ya know?

;)

banyon
06-12-2007, 02:13 PM
So, you are sticking with: unsubstantiated hyperbole and speculation? Got it. :thumb:

You may join jAZ, TC, and Duhnise at the 4-Top in the corner....of the basement. We'll send a waiter down to check on you once in awhile. We don't want to scare off "paying" customers....ya know?

;)


So I think that the fact that one of Bush's closest friends is implicated in a bribery scandal reflects poorly on Bush, and that makes me a crazy nutcase in your book?

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 03:20 PM
So I think that the fact that one of Bush's closest friends is implicated in a bribery scandal reflects poorly on Bush, and that makes me a crazy nutcase in your book?
Nope. It's the selective outrage and partisan motivation that earns you a place at that "esteemed" table. ;)



FWIW, you don't really belong....penchief is a much better candidate; but I'm goading you at the moment. The fact you recognized the nutcase table for what it was...is a good sign.. Heh.

banyon
06-12-2007, 03:29 PM
Nope. It's the selective outrage and partisan motivation that earns you a place at that "esteemed" table. ;)



FWIW, you don't really belong....penchief is a much better candidate; but I'm goading you at the moment. The fact you recognized the nutcase table for what it was...is a good sign.. Heh.

Hell, Kotter, "selective outrage" should be your motto above your avatar. :D

patteeu
06-12-2007, 08:50 PM
I do believe that is one of the reasons. Or at least a convenient fringe benefit.

It may be a convenient fringe benefit, but I don't believe this war was motivated by profiteering opportunities at all.